TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:The fact that they never bothered to ask him to leave nor informed him of store policy about firearms before calling law enforcement on him would seem to be grounds for a lawsuit to me. I will definitely not get any Costco membership now. I wouldn't want to give a company like that any of my money.

See the first post of the thread. I believe that an employee did tell him about the policy and asked him to leave. Apparently they didn't give him much time to leave before calling 911.

My understanding was these security employee said guns were not allowed in the store. Erik may have gotten all second amendment on him. The security person did not say " you must leave the store" it's kinda of like the 911 operator, did not say " do not follow Trayvon". But instead said "we don't need for you to follow him". There is a difference. But when your going to call the police to have some one arrested, you need to at least ask the person to leave.

Staying guns are not allowed in a store when there is no sign, sounds a lot like a security person over stepping his authority, this may have been how Erik felt. Who knows now as he is dead and the video evidence and other physical evidence was not collected or is missing.

philip964 wrote:

tacticool wrote:I can see the logic behind suing the cops who shot him. I can even see the logic behind suing the employee, if they lied about the facts during the 911 call. I don't see any reason (except greed) to sue the company unless they have a policy encouraging employees to lie to 911.

Companies are responsible for the actions of their employees.

I went to the Costco a few years ago when I was in Las Vegas. There are still no signs, saying guns are not allowed. I am a former member of Costco, I did not know of the no gun policy until this happened. Erik had just joined Costco a few moments before, I'm sure the attendant did not say "oh please read this fine print contract carefully. It says you can't bring a gun into the store."

Erik was never asked to leave the store. Instead of asking him to leave, they called 911 and essentially said a madman was inside their store with a gun, Help Help. Then they pointed him out to the police as he was peacefully exiting the store with his girlfriend, so he could be killed.

In case you have forgotten five of the seven bullets were in his back after he was lying on the ground. Someone here called it contagious fire.

The video wasn't working that day, but it was never sent to the FBI, so we really don't know.

Former West Point graduate. Former Army Captain. Top salesman for Medtronics. Nevada CHL holder. Caucasian, handsome, athletic, the exact opposite of the police officer who fired the first bullet. Erik was portrayed as a wife beater and prescription pill addict during the one sided inquest.

"Drop your gun," "freeze", "get on your knees" the police called out with guns drawn and pointed at him. The first bullet fired into his chest killed him almost instantly.

CSI has never interested me much since this happened.

The Las Vegas police have harassed his girlfriend and other supporters since the killing.

One of the police officers has since been arrested on an unrelated matter, the two others have received a national police award.

I thought we could not link to lvrj, or did they loose that one in the courts pretty bad?
.

tacticool wrote:I can see the logic behind suing the cops who shot him. I can even see the logic behind suing the employee, if they lied about the facts during the 911 call. I don't see any reason (except greed) to sue the company unless they have a policy encouraging employees to lie to 911.

Keith B wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

puma guy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:He was banned for four reasons; 1) violation of the rule against general "COP-bashing;" 2) making a personal attack against a fellow Member; 3) responding equally inappropriately to a warning PM sent by a Moderator; and 4) then changing his email address to a bogus one with a fictitious profane domain name. Obviously, he didn't want to remain a Member.

I too am sorry about his personal attack gigag04.

Chas.

Thank You, Mr. Cotton and good riddence. This is why TexasCHLForum is THE best in the land!

I agree.... but I still enjoy telling a good cop joke once in a while
But I enjoy preach jokes too....

Donut jokes are one thing; personal attacks are another. My apologies too gigag04. I got to this as quickly as possible, but sometimes folks are just faster than us Mods in reading.

puma guy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:He was banned for four reasons; 1) violation of the rule against general "COP-bashing;" 2) making a personal attack against a fellow Member; 3) responding equally inappropriately to a warning PM sent by a Moderator; and 4) then changing his email address to a bogus one with a fictitious profane domain name. Obviously, he didn't want to remain a Member.

I too am sorry about his personal attack gigag04.

Chas.

Thank You, Mr. Cotton and good riddence. This is why TexasCHLForum is THE best in the land!